get_companyGet details about one agency or developer by id or slug (from search_companies): profile, rating, specialties, languages, service areas, and contact info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Company id or slug |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by listing returned fields but does not disclose additional behaviors like error handling or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the purpose and resources.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-id tool, it covers the resource, input, and output fields. However, it omits error conditions or response format, but without an output schema, the listed fields provide sufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description clarifies that 'id' can be a slug and recommends using it from search_companies, adding meaning beyond the schema's 'Company id or slug' description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get details') and resource ('one agency or developer') and explicitly lists the fields returned, distinguishing it from siblings like get_agent or get_listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'from search_companies' indicates it is used after searching, providing context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare directly with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes covering account management, listings, search, financials, etc. However, `fetch` and `get_listing` both retrieve full listing details, creating potential confusion. Also, `search` and `search_listings` overlap but are differentiated by free-text vs. filtered search.
All tool names follow a consistent `verb_noun` pattern in snake_case (e.g., `create_listing`, `publish_listing`, `connect_account`). The naming is predictable and clear throughout.
At 39 tools, the server is quite large for a real estate domain. While it covers many aspects, some tools like `fetch` and `get_listing` are redundant. The count feels excessive and could be streamlined to around 25-30 without losing functionality.
The tool set covers listing CRUD, various search types, agent/company profiles, financial calculators, inquiries, saved searches, and account management. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of bulk operations or advanced analytics, but core workflows are well-supported.